Quoted from the Style Section of the Sunday New York Times of 16 Oct 09:

"As a teenager, I once went on a date with a green-eyed boy. He sailed us
across Narragansett Bay, then stopped under the Newport Bridge and dared me
to jump overboard. Without hesitating, I stood on the stern and leaped. The
current beneath the bridge was so strong that within seconds I was dragged
far from the boy and the boat. I saw his stunned face, his tanned shirtless
body quickly working the lines to come to my rescue."

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare

Armond Perretta wrote:
Quoted from the Style Section of the Sunday New York Times of 16 Oct 09:

"As a teenager, I once went on a date with a green-eyed boy. He sailed us
across Narragansett Bay, then stopped under the Newport Bridge and dared me
to jump overboard. Without hesitating, I stood on the stern and leaped. The
current beneath the bridge was so strong that within seconds I was dragged
far from the boy and the boat. I saw his stunned face, his tanned shirtless
body quickly working the lines to come to my rescue."

Current selectively took swimmer but not boat. Typical NYTimes accuracy
and research.

I suppose the article finished by claiming the swimmer, about to die,
prayed to the Great God Obamanation and was saved. That too fits the
NYTimes perfectly.

slide wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
Quoted from the Style Section of the Sunday New York Times of 16 Oct 09:

"As a teenager, I once went on a date with a green-eyed boy. He sailed us
across Narragansett Bay, then stopped under the Newport Bridge and
dared me
to jump overboard. Without hesitating, I stood on the stern and
leaped. The
current beneath the bridge was so strong that within seconds I was
dragged
far from the boy and the boat. I saw his stunned face, his tanned
shirtless
body quickly working the lines to come to my rescue."

Current selectively took swimmer but not boat. Typical NYTimes accuracy
and research.


That would be the obvious observation. However, having spent several
days last summer on a mooring a few hundred yards South of the bridge, I
can say that the current is strong, swirly, and perturbed by the wakes
of many boats large and small, not to mention the bridge structure
itself. I can easily imagine the boat and swimmer getting separated
rather quickly.

BTW, the article does not specify whether the boat "stopped" motion
through the water, or relative to the bottom, or had simply eased the
sheets an was drifting downwind. Its quite easy for small boat to make
a knot drifting, giving the impression of being separated by the current.

We had been planing to stay in Newport for a weekend, but were told by
another boater that Jamestown was vastly superior. That might be so,
because Newport can be a very sloppy mess on a summer weekend, but
Jamestown was certainly not calm, being totally open to all passing traffic.

Jeff wrote:

We had been planing to stay in Newport for a weekend, but were told by
another boater that Jamestown was vastly superior. That might be so,
because Newport can be a very sloppy mess on a summer weekend, but
Jamestown was certainly not calm, being totally open to all passing
traffic.

We stayed on the other side of Conanticut at Dutch Harbor. It is a 10
minute walk across the island to the Newport Ferry and whatever else one
wants in either Jamestown or Newport. The Dutch Harbor side is very popular
with locals, but even so it's really quite calm and relaxed in general.
Dutch Harbor Marine is well set up and accommodating. Having done it this
way I doubt I would ever want to put up with Newport Harbor again.

--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://home.comcast.net/~kerrydeare

slide wrote:
Armond Perretta wrote:
Quoted from the Style Section of the Sunday New York Times of 16 Oct 09:

"As a teenager, I once went on a date with a green-eyed boy. He sailed us
across Narragansett Bay, then stopped under the Newport Bridge and
dared me
to jump overboard. Without hesitating, I stood on the stern and
leaped. The
current beneath the bridge was so strong that within seconds I was
dragged
far from the boy and the boat. I saw his stunned face, his tanned
shirtless
body quickly working the lines to come to my rescue."

Current selectively took swimmer but not boat. Typical NYTimes accuracy
and research.

I suppose the article finished by claiming the swimmer, about to die,
prayed to the Great God Obamanation and was saved. That too fits the
NYTimes perfectly.

Slams like this against Obama are just name calling. Silly,
meaningless. You are showing that you are being lead by those who throw
mud against the wall all day, Fox News, and the great Roger Ailes.

No substance to your argument, if you had one. But you probably can't
tell that you parrot meaningless statements, because your hate knows no
logic.

Name calling is what ignorant people do when they can't express
themselves. How about formulating your thoughts before you post?

"Jim" wrote:


Slams like this against Obama are just name calling. Silly,
meaningless. You are showing that you are being lead by those who
throw mud against the wall all day, Fox News, and the great Roger
Ailes.

Faux News!

You would question Faux News?

You will hurt Rupert's feelings.

Lew

Jim wrote:
slide wrote:


Slams like this against Obama are just name calling. Silly,
meaningless. You are showing that you are being lead by those who throw
mud against the wall all day, Fox News, and the great Roger Ailes.

Worse! It's racism, I tell you!

My comment was NOT a slam against Obama. It was against the bias of the
NYTimes. Read it again.